Amanda's Butt vs Tracy's Butt
Jay
side and slightly rear, her butt cheeks were hanging out big time.
Wondering why they let her cheeks go unblurred but not Amanda's last
season.
Lil
Jay <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I thought I saw a blurred shot of Amanda's boob when exiting the water.
Brian Smith
news:ijpcr3h922i0rod45...@4ax.com...
If you've been watching BB this season you'll really start to wonder why
Amanda was blurred out last season. There is an Amanda in BB9 who they have
shown bending over, etc. who has shorts on that are about as short as you
can get. Yet no blurring. Maybe the S15 blur person hated nice butts!
Brian
Jr.
"Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CRwtj.44481$Ly.33011@pd7urf1no...
Steven L.
The media asked Amanda about that, after S15 was over. She denied it,
and said she didn't know why the editors were blurring her so much.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Kenny Ray
hope we get an oppoutunity to look at them butts in Playboy sometime.
number6
> If you ask me Amber and Parvarti both have really fine looking butts, I
> hope we get an oppoutunity to look at them butts in Playboy sometime.
With a plethora of fine looking female butts profilerating the
internet ... why does the appearance of a random reality show
contestant's fine looking butt in print hold such allure ??
Brian Smith
news:moKdnUSQSuS1fCva...@comcast.net...
There was at least one unblurred photo of Amanda and I honestly did not see
why she was blurred. Her butt was sticking out a bit but nothing like what
they've shown on BB.
Brian
Steven L.
> If you ask me Amber and Parvarti both have really fine looking butts, I
> hope we get an oppoutunity to look at them butts in Playboy sometime.
Amber already posed twice for Stuff Magazine--once after S2, and once
after S8.
S2 Photoshoot:
http://www.stuff-mag.com/cover_girls/girl.aspx?id=177
S8 Photoshoot:
http://www.stuff-mag.com/cover_girls/girl.aspx?id=395
Dubya
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Kenny Ray wrote:
>> If you ask me Amber and Parvarti both have really fine looking butts, I
>> hope we get an oppoutunity to look at them butts in Playboy sometime.
>
>Amber already posed twice for Stuff Magazine--once after S2, and once
>after S8.
>
>S2 Photoshoot:
>http://www.stuff-mag.com/cover_girls/girl.aspx?id=177
>
>S8 Photoshoot:
>http://www.stuff-mag.com/cover_girls/girl.aspx?id=395
tyvm
Brian Smith
news:MPG.22219fdb3...@news.east.earthlink.net...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:08:02 GMT Brian Smith (dcg_...@hotmail.com)
> stepped to the mic and said...
> not.
That's only true for the Tuesday episode.
Brian
shawn
It will be interesting to see how they handle tonight's episode of Big
Brother. There's been a lot of sex in the last few days. I'm sure they
will say something about it, but will they play it back (even blurred)
or just skip over it, or maybe they won't even mention it. It seems
unlikely they won't mention it since they seem to have chosen these
people for their likely hood to have sex and get naked.
Obveeus
"The Horny Goat" <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> Uh - in our viewing area both Survivor and BB are on at 8 pm. The
> Apprentice is on at 9 so presumably Trump should be bringing us more
> raunch right?
Actually, no. The FCC rules restrict 'raunch' any time before 10pm. Well,
technically, they restrict any 'raunch' no matter what time, but they are
'more restrictive' during the 8pm-10pm timeframe than the 10pm-11pm
timeframe. Recently, this issue has been brought to a head because the FCC
decided to fine the ABC network over an episode of NYPD Blue that aired 5
years ago. The 'fine' was only enforced against ABC's US affiliates in the
Central and Mountain timezone since primetime television shows are aired 1
hour earlier in those timezones. In essence, the FCC is trying to using
their censorship power to block the long standing tradition of the
Central/Mountain timezones to air their 'primetime' an hour earlier than the
East/West coast.
I'd like to think that the next President would show some brain power and
cut the FCC budget/power to near nothing, but that likely won't happen no
matter who is elected. So, every individual needs to complain to the
FCC/congress/etc... or watch that department further erode the 'freedom' of
American citizens.
Brian Smith
news:e2tgr396cvkejur9t...@4ax.com...
Tonight's episode of BB should very good. They have to explain the make-up
of the people in the house (if you've been watching the feeds or reading the
transcripts you'll know what I'm talking about) and deal with two incidents
of sex. If you watched the feeds last night and saw/heard about the Amanda
incident (what she said Alex did to her) the night before then Tuesday's
episode should be even better. Julie should have a fun time talking to them
on Wednesday when she brings things up!
Brian
Brian Smith
news:fpa3v2$mlb$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
If you guys think you have it hard with broadcast censorship then come to
Canada. The much hated CRTC here essentially can do whatever they want and
they often do. I wish our government would cut their budget by about 90% and
takeaway all of their power except to issue licenses. And that should have
nothing to do with Canadian content rules which Canadian networks stand
behind to prevent us from getting HBO, etc. Yet we can get all of the
programming from HBO, etc. but we have to subscribe to about a dozen cable
channels to do so. And of course these cable networks are owned in large
part by Canadian media conglomerates. Viewers in Canada have no power at all
other than not watching or getting an illegal dish.
Brian
Obveeus
"Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you guys think you have it hard with broadcast censorship then come to
> Canada.
I don't like the censorship here, but the worst part, IMO, is that the
'crackdown' is largely the result of what the American public wants. A TV
miniseries like 'Roots' (it is Black History Month here in the USA) probably
couldn't air today as a new program without being censored. In the last 3
years or so, there have only been a half dozen or less NC-17 movies TOTAL
released in this country. The cable channels, which aren't under the same
FCC control, still have reduced eliminated much of their 'nudity' content
(the best example is probably MTV 20 years ago when music videos were
extremely popular vs. now when the music indistry is all but dead). This
country (the USA) seems to want to remove sexuality from 'daily life'. They
are all for tons of violence, though. The more violence the better.
> Viewers in Canada have no power at all other than not watching or getting
> an illegal dish.
Is it really illegal to own a dish that picks up US broadcasts? How worried
are you up in Canada about the US switch to digital tv next February? Does
that mean that a digital antenna will also be illegal? Will Canadians be
able to recieve any US stations or are you all pretty much out of luck if
you don't live within a few miles of Detroit or Buffalo?
Brian Smith
>
> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> If you guys think you have it hard with broadcast censorship then come to
>> Canada.
>
> I don't like the censorship here, but the worst part, IMO, is that the
> 'crackdown' is largely the result of what the American public wants. A TV
> miniseries like 'Roots' (it is Black History Month here in the USA)
> probably couldn't air today as a new program without being censored. In
> the last 3 years or so, there have only been a half dozen or less NC-17
> movies TOTAL released in this country. The cable channels, which aren't
> under the same FCC control, still have reduced eliminated much of their
> 'nudity' content (the best example is probably MTV 20 years ago when music
> videos were extremely popular vs. now when the music indistry is all but
> dead). This country (the USA) seems to want to remove sexuality from
> 'daily life'. They are all for tons of violence, though. The more
> violence the better.
Censoring roots would be crazy but I guess anything is possible. Would shows
about the Holocaust be censored as well? I would hope nothing which is
historically accurate would be censored. It's the only way we learn from our
mistakes.
As for movies, same situation in Canada because Hollywood controls the
distribution. There might be the odd European movie shown in an art house
theater but that would be rare.
Cable channels in Canada (Canadian ones that is) are controlled by the CRTC
but nudity is not a big issue on cable channels. The put the usual warning
before shows saying it contains nudity, violence, etc. and do so after
commercial break. If something bothers you change the channel. There's even
the odd time where the broadcast networks will show nudity and life goes on.
The only time I can remember there being a big stink was a show that was
shown on Discovery Channel. It was a Canadian made show and probably not
shown on the US Discovery Channel but you might have gotten it on another
cable channel. I believe the name of the show was the Sex Files. Anyway, it
came on around 8 PM and dealt with some topics that you would never see on
US network TV. One episode was on anal sex and they showed some action. Some
father complained that his 12 year old daughter saw this and had questions
about it and that forced the show to moved to a later hour. The fact that
one person could have that much influence sucks but things weren't much
different in the Janet Jackson case. At least in the case I'm mentioning
they actually showed something.
By the way, its Black History Month in Canada as well.
>> Viewers in Canada have no power at all other than not watching or getting
>> an illegal dish.
>
> Is it really illegal to own a dish that picks up US broadcasts? How
> worried are you up in Canada about the US switch to digital tv next
> February? Does that mean that a digital antenna will also be illegal?
> Will Canadians be able to recieve any US stations or are you all pretty
> much out of luck if you don't live within a few miles of Detroit or
> Buffalo?
It's illegal to own a dish not approved by the CRTC. Receiving US stations
is no problem and it's why so many people have cable or satellite. Where I
live (Calgary) is about 150 miles or so from the Montana border but a lot
farther to any place with a sizeable population. Without cable we'd be
hooped but we get the core set of US networks out of Spokane, WA. If you
have digital cable and/or HD cable you can get stations from other time
zones which is nice in that you have a choice of when to watch stuff and get
programming unique to that market.
I don't think the US switching to digital TV is going to impact us as we can
already get US HD stations via cable and/or satellite. I better question is
when is the CRTC going to force the unbelievably greedy and cheap Canadian
networks to switch over. It was supposed to have happened by now but they'll
wait for you guys to go first and then it will happen here. In the meantime
Canadians who want HDTV content have to rely on cable or satellite. Unless
they live close to a border city.
Brian
The Horny Goat
>Is it really illegal to own a dish that picks up US broadcasts? How worried
>are you up in Canada about the US switch to digital tv next February? Does
>that mean that a digital antenna will also be illegal? Will Canadians be
>able to recieve any US stations or are you all pretty much out of luck if
>you don't live within a few miles of Detroit or Buffalo?
First off, Canada has the highest rate of cable in the world so most
anything is available though I specifically would like to see TV
Ontario (Ontario public TV) in BC as well as the various BBC services
besides BBC Newsworld.
The usual justification in requiring Canadian cable networks to show
the Canadian feed when a Canadian network and US network are showing
the same show is that Canadian networks usually purchase Canadian
broadcast rights (and therefore the rights to show their own
commercials) for the shows and this is an important source of revenue
for US networks. This is considered impractical when the shows are
showing at different times but most popular US shows are shown in
Canada at the same time as in the US - so as an example I see Survivor
at 8 on Thursdays (usually).
This is also why we don't normally get to see the infamous Superbowl
commercials in Canada.
As for Detroit or Buffalo - you don't get the US feeds directly if
you're on cable and at most 15% of Canadian city-dwellers get their TV
by broadcast these days.
Satellite transmissions are also licenced so the only legal way to do
it is to have a US billing address since it is certainly legal to take
a dish cross border. I know several people who have US credit cards
specifically for this purpose.
Steven L.
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fpaa5d$mfb$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> If you guys think you have it hard with broadcast censorship then come to
>>> Canada.
>> I don't like the censorship here, but the worst part, IMO, is that the
>> 'crackdown' is largely the result of what the American public wants. A TV
>> miniseries like 'Roots' (it is Black History Month here in the USA)
>> probably couldn't air today as a new program without being censored. In
>> the last 3 years or so, there have only been a half dozen or less NC-17
>> movies TOTAL released in this country. The cable channels, which aren't
>> under the same FCC control, still have reduced eliminated much of their
>> 'nudity' content (the best example is probably MTV 20 years ago when music
>> videos were extremely popular vs. now when the music indistry is all but
>> dead). This country (the USA) seems to want to remove sexuality from
>> 'daily life'. They are all for tons of violence, though. The more
>> violence the better.
>
> Censoring roots would be crazy but I guess anything is possible. Would shows
> about the Holocaust be censored as well? I would hope nothing which is
> historically accurate would be censored. It's the only way we learn from our
> mistakes.
Some years ago, the Discovery Channel aired a miniseries, "Walking With
Cavemen." A sequel to "Walking With Dinosaurs," this miniseries tried
to show how our hominid ancestors may have lived a million years ago.
Parents complained that this miniseries was unsuitable for young
viewers, because it depicted the early hominids as fully naked (clothing
hadn't been invented yet). Even worse, it tried to depict some hominid
sexuality: The Homo Ergaster guy comes back to camp after a long day
hunting, finds his female mate and caresses her breast while she's
naked. The purpose of the scene was to show how male-female
pair-bonding might have first started a million years ago, leading to
the modern concept of marriage. But that really horrified some parents.
As a result, while other Discovery Channel programs have been shown in
school for the kids, most schools have rejected "Walking With Cavemen"
as too controversial.
Some local communities in America can be quite conservative:
'Faust' opera video stirs angry parents
Associated Press
BENNETT, Colo. - Some parents in this prairie town are angry with an
elementary school music teacher for showing pupils a video about the
opera "Faust," whose title character sells his soul to the devil in
exchange for being young again.
"Any adult with common sense would not think that video was appropriate
for a young person to see. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a high
school student," Robby Warner said after two of her children saw the video.
Another parent, Casey Goodwin, said, "I think it glorifies Satan in some
way."
Tresa Waggoner showed approximately 250 first-, second- and
third-graders at Bennett Elementary portions of a 33-year-old series
titled "Who's Afraid of Opera" a few weeks ago.
The video features the soprano Dame Joan Sutherland and three puppet
friends discussing Gounod's "Faust." Waggoner thought it would be a good
introduction to opera.
Her critics questioned the decision to show children a portrayal of the
devil, Mephistopheles, along with a scene showing a man being killed by
a sword and a reference to suicide.
School Superintendent George Sauter said the teacher should not have
shown the video to children below the fourth grade but will not lose her
job. She has sent letter of apology to all elementary school parents in
Bennett, population 2,400 and about 25 miles east of Denver on
Colorado's eastern plains.
"I was definitely not sensitive to the conservative nature of the
community, and I've learned that," Waggoner said in Sunday's editions of
The Denver Post. "However, from what has been said about me, that I'm a
Satan worshipper, my character, I can't believe all of this. My
intention was just to expose the kids to opera."
Waggoner, who is in her first year teaching vocal music in Bennett, said
she doesn't expect to stay in town.
"I know I'm not accepted here, that I'm not welcome here by the
parents," she said. "It's a very uncomfortable position."
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/1377616...
--
Obveeus
"Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Censoring roots would be crazy but I guess anything is possible. Would
> shows about the Holocaust be censored as well?
If Roots were shown on TV today, they would probably allow it to air
unedited so as not to look like total hypocrites. Same goes for the airing
of Schindler's List or Titanic. However, if a new TV movie taking the same
attempted 'serious' approach to the subject matter (or any other subject
matter) tired to show the same nudity, you can bet that the censors would
step in anbd stop it.
> By the way, its Black History Month in Canada as well.
Copycats. ;-)
> I don't think the US switching to digital TV is going to impact us as we
> can already get US HD stations via cable and/or satellite.
Yes, I understand that people with cable./satellite won't have a problem,
but I would guess that anyone using an antenna to pick up US broadcast
stations is going to find it difficult to do the same with digital broadcast
unless they are really close to the source.
> I better question is when is the CRTC going to force the unbelievably
> greedy and cheap Canadian networks to switch over. It was supposed to have
> happened by now but they'll wait for you guys to go first and then it will
> happen here. In the meantime Canadians who want HDTV content have to rely
> on cable or satellite. Unless they live close to a border city.
Digital is a big ripoff here, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the digital
stations aren't broadcasting HD anyway except for sports or PBS. Eventualy,
everything will move to HDTV content, but it may be a long time and it will
only take longer if the cable companies find success with simply cramming
lots of extra channels into the digital space.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Some years ago, the Discovery Channel aired a miniseries, "Walking With
> Cavemen." A sequel to "Walking With Dinosaurs," this miniseries tried to
> show how our hominid ancestors may have lived a million years ago.
I recently watched the 'old' movie, Caveman with Ringo Starr and Shelley
Long. It might have missed the mark slightly in terms of historical
accuracy, but I think it probably did a good of a job portraying the
evolutionary process as anything on Discovery Channel.
> 'Faust' opera video stirs angry parents
> Associated Press
>
> BENNETT, Colo. - Some parents in this prairie town are angry with an
> elementary school music teacher for showing pupils a video about the
> opera "Faust," whose title character sells his soul to the devil in
> exchange for being young again.
>
> "Any adult with common sense would not think that video was appropriate
> for a young person to see. I'm not sure it's appropriate for a high
> school student," Robby Warner said after two of her children saw the
> video.
>
> Another parent, Casey Goodwin, said, "I think it glorifies Satan in some
> way."
Worse yet...it glorifies opera. ;-)
> Waggoner, who is in her first year teaching vocal music in Bennett, said
> she doesn't expect to stay in town.
>
> "I know I'm not accepted here, that I'm not welcome here by the
> parents," she said. "It's a very uncomfortable position."
I feel bad for this teacher. Society is extremely disappointing at times.
The Horny Goat
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"I was definitely not sensitive to the conservative nature of the
>community, and I've learned that," Waggoner said in Sunday's editions of
>The Denver Post. "However, from what has been said about me, that I'm a
>Satan worshipper, my character, I can't believe all of this. My
>intention was just to expose the kids to opera."
I'd say Faust ** is ** too sophisticated for first graders and I'd be
concerned if my kids had been there - but apologizing to ALL parents
in the school not just her class? That's even dumber than the
teacher's original lack of judgement.
When I was in elementary school choir (late 60s) we were doing My Fair
Lady and Sound of Music which I suppose could have offended some folks
because of the Nazis...
By the time I finished junior high I had heard most of the major
Gilbert & Sullivan operettas but then we knew enough to know that most
of it was farce.
I'd say Faust would be ok for older kids and certainly for high
schoolers - I'm not sure where I'd draw the line.
Steven L.
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:44:29 -0500, "Steven L."
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> "I was definitely not sensitive to the conservative nature of the
>> community, and I've learned that," Waggoner said in Sunday's editions of
>> The Denver Post. "However, from what has been said about me, that I'm a
>> Satan worshipper, my character, I can't believe all of this. My
>> intention was just to expose the kids to opera."
>
> I'd say Faust ** is ** too sophisticated for first graders and I'd be
> concerned if my kids had been there - but apologizing to ALL parents
> in the school not just her class? That's even dumber than the
> teacher's original lack of judgement.
Times have changed.
My mom introduced me to Pagliacci when I was about six years old. And
it has pretty adult themes too.
So did The Twilight Zone, which I watched when I was in first and second
grade. I learned much more about life from The Twilight Zone than I
learned in school.
Brian Smith
>
> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Censoring roots would be crazy but I guess anything is possible. Would
>> shows about the Holocaust be censored as well?
>
> If Roots were shown on TV today, they would probably allow it to air
> unedited so as not to look like total hypocrites. Same goes for the
> airing of Schindler's List or Titanic. However, if a new TV movie taking
> the same attempted 'serious' approach to the subject matter (or any other
> subject matter) tired to show the same nudity, you can bet that the
> censors would step in anbd stop it.
But would the censors step in if some special interest group didn't
complain? I wish the FCC would grow a pair and tell these groups if they
don't like something to either turn the channel or boycott the network
broadcasting the program and/or the advertisers. If the public truly was
offended they will take action. And what's wrong with relying on ratings? If
such a show was so offensive it would get really bad ratings. It's not like
the networks are holding a gun to peoples heads forcing them to watch.
>> By the way, its Black History Month in Canada as well.
>
> Copycats. ;-)
We definitely are but it makes sense to since so much of the history is
intertwined.
>> I don't think the US switching to digital TV is going to impact us as we
>> can already get US HD stations via cable and/or satellite.
>
> Yes, I understand that people with cable./satellite won't have a problem,
> but I would guess that anyone using an antenna to pick up US broadcast
> stations is going to find it difficult to do the same with digital
> broadcast unless they are really close to the source.
>
>> I better question is when is the CRTC going to force the unbelievably
>> greedy and cheap Canadian networks to switch over. It was supposed to
>> have happened by now but they'll wait for you guys to go first and then
>> it will happen here. In the meantime Canadians who want HDTV content have
>> to rely on cable or satellite. Unless they live close to a border city.
>
> Digital is a big ripoff here, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the
> digital stations aren't broadcasting HD anyway except for sports or PBS.
> Eventualy, everything will move to HDTV content, but it may be a long time
> and it will only take longer if the cable companies find success with
> simply cramming lots of extra channels into the digital space.
I just found out that the date for Canadian stations to fully convert to
digital is August 31, 2011. The networks would like to delay this forever
but I have a strange feeling consumer pressure will push this up a lot.
People want HD content and not being able to get it over the air in most
markets when the technology exists is crazy. To get HD content where I live
you have to buy an HD box for about $350 ($625 or so for one with a hard
drive for recording purposes) and upgrade your cable package to get a small
number of HD channels. To get more HD channels you need to do another
upgrade. Major rip-off for people who only want HD versions of US network
programming. How far behind are we (US and Canada) compared to places like
Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in HD broadcasts? Something tells me we are
living in the stone age. :-(
Brian
Brian Smith
news:13rht1k...@corp.supernews.com...
Some of these parents are major league hypocrites. They complain like hell
about what's taught in school but I bet you they have no troubles letting
their kids watch R-rated movies they've rented from Blockbuster or playing
video games with similar content. Same applies for how they let their kids
dress.
Brian
Brian Smith
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:50:14 GMT Brian Smith (dcg_...@hotmail.com)
> stepped to the mic and said...
>
>> shows
>> about the Holocaust be censored as well? I would hope nothing which is
>> historically accurate would be censored. It's the only way we learn from
>> our
>> mistakes.
>>
>> The degree of vicious hatred in something like "Roots" far exceeds
>> anything
>> found in an Holocaust account.
>>
>> By the way, its Black History Month in Canada as well.
>>
> month? 'Scuse my ignorance, but who are the black Canadian movers and
> shakers of years past?
I'm serious. Do you think there are no black people in Canada? They've been
here essentially just as long as in the US and have made key contributions
to the country, etc. but without getting much credit or people knowing what
they have done. Not much different than in the US which is why I think there
is Black History Month. I'm sure if you do a web search you'll find a whack
of material on the history of blacks in Canada and notice a rather similar
story except slavery ended a lot sooner.
Brian
Obveeus
"Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> But would the censors step in if some special interest group didn't
> complain?
Interesting question. I think the FCC only 'investigates' after someone
complains, but that is about stuff that has reached the airwaves already.
Each television show has its own 'FCC representative' (works for the show,
not the FCC) that works to insure 'proper' content limits before the
broadcast.
> I wish the FCC would grow a pair and tell these groups if they don't like
> something to either turn the channel or boycott the network broadcasting
> the program and/or the advertisers.
Unfortunately, as we have seen on cable TV, the threat of boycott works to
'censor' as well as the government. The thing that annoys me is that these
threats are still enacted by a tiny minortiy of viewers. Maybe the majority
needs to start threateneing to boycott any show/network/advertiser that
gives in to the first group's threats?
>If the public truly was offended they will take action. And what's wrong
>with relying on ratings?
The one thing that the angry minority does not want is for ratings to be the
deciding factor. They know very well that a show like Survivor, for
example, would not lose viewers if they aired Amanda's backside unblurred.
> How far behind are we (US and Canada) compared to places like Japan, South
> Korea and Taiwan in HD broadcasts? Something tells me we are living in the
> stone age. :-(
Interesting question. I know the USA cannot even get the different networks
to agree on a standard 720vs.1080 so I would guess that many other countries
are also implememnting different standards for resolution and frame rate.
Whenever multiple standards are used, you don't really want to be one of
those consumers on the 'cutting edge' to adopt the new technology. Just
think of all those that bought in to Toshiba's HDTV version of DVD, for
example.
Obveeus
"Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Some of these parents are major league hypocrites. They complain like hell
> about what's taught in school but I bet you they have no troubles letting
> their kids watch R-rated movies they've rented from Blockbuster or playing
> video games with similar content. Same applies for how they let their kids
> dress.
Not to mention that they let their kids read all those bible stories about
pimping out one's daughters, killing people, beating slaves, etc...
Obveeus
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 20:06:14 -0500 Obveeus (Obv...@aol.com) stepped to
> the mic and said...
>> I recently watched the 'old' movie, Caveman with Ringo Starr and Shelley
>> Long. It might have missed the mark slightly in terms of historical
>> accuracy, but I think it probably did a good of a job portraying the
>> evolutionary process as anything on Discovery Channel.
>>
>>
> I think "Quest For Fire" would do a better job in that than some movie
> with Ringo Starr.
Quest for Fire is an excellent movie, but much less 'relatable' for kids (or
even adults). Caveman really does try to represent the evolutionary
learning process for its characters.
Van Nostrand
> You're kidding? How do they find enough stuff to "celebrate" a whole
> month?
Well, they did pick the shortest month ...
Michael Black
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 23:50:14 GMT Brian Smith (dcg_...@hotmail.com)
>
>> about the Holocaust be censored as well? I would hope nothing which is
>> historically accurate would be censored. It's the only way we learn from our
>> mistakes.
>>
>> The degree of vicious hatred in something like "Roots" far exceeds anything
>> found in an Holocaust account.
>>
>>
> shakers of years past?
>
Lots of people came up later, because they found things more hospitable.
One woman has been teaching tap dancing for about fifty years, she came
to Montreal with Cab Calloway as a teenager and decided to stay. Oscar
Peterson died just before Christmas, and for some he's right up
there as a Big Name in jazz.
Black History Month isn't about "movers and shakers" it's about the
fact that blacks have been here a long time, but that history is often
overlooked.
You don't have to be in the US to celebrate Black History. One local
has this page, http://blackhistorypages.net and it's been around since
1996. I imagine one reason I'm posting it now is because Emru has
just been diagnosed as having leukemia.
Michael
Steven L.
> "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:fpal5q$6ql$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>> "Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Censoring roots would be crazy but I guess anything is possible. Would
>>> shows about the Holocaust be censored as well?
>> If Roots were shown on TV today, they would probably allow it to air
>> unedited so as not to look like total hypocrites. Same goes for the
>> airing of Schindler's List or Titanic. However, if a new TV movie taking
>> the same attempted 'serious' approach to the subject matter (or any other
>> subject matter) tired to show the same nudity, you can bet that the
>> censors would step in anbd stop it.
>
> But would the censors step in if some special interest group didn't
> complain? I wish the FCC would grow a pair
FYI, the "Family Viewing Hour" (8 - 9 PM Eastern time) was created by
the FCC in 1976 in response to public pressure. An angry Congress had
already been holding public hearings over the amount of sex and violence
on TV. If the FCC hadn't created "Family Viewing" to appease them,
Congress might well have passed legislation to force them to do some
such thing.
An FCC that seemed to be openly defying public opinion, as you suggest,
would bring the relevant Congressional committees down on them in a
hurry. In 2006, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the
Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, which mandates stiff penalties for
violation of FCC decency standards.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-310
The FCC got the message: Enforce decency standards.
Ultimately, Federal control of the content of broadcasting (whether done
by the FCC or done by the Congress) may well end up running afoul of the
First Amendment. But the networks don't need the unfavorable publicity
of being hauled before Congressional subcommittees like the tobacco
executives were, and prefer to meet their critics halfway. After all,
the networks are ultimately in the business of entertaining the public,
not antagonizing them.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In 2006, Congress passed, and President Bush signed, the Broadcast Decency
> Enforcement Act, which mandates stiff penalties for violation of FCC
> decency standards.
The entire fiasco was brought about because some people saw a nipple at the
Superbowl. Mostly, though, it was because people were told that they could
have seen a nipple if they had been paying attention and they were told to
be outraged because of that. Complaints flowed in to the FCC, but the
number of people complaining was still a miniscule percentage of TV viewers.
> Ultimately, Federal control of the content of broadcasting (whether done
> by the FCC or done by the Congress) may well end up running afoul of the
> First Amendment. But the networks don't need the unfavorable publicity of
> being hauled before Congressional subcommittees like the tobacco
> executives were, and prefer to meet their critics halfway. After all, the
> networks are ultimately in the business of entertaining the public, not
> antagonizing them.
More correctly: the networks need advertisers and the advertisers are
scared to death that these small minority groups will start boycotts that
hurt their business.
Obveeus
"Larry in AZ" <use...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> said:
>> The entire fiasco was brought about because some people saw a nipple at
>> the Superbowl. Mostly, though, it was because people were told that
>> they could have seen a nipple if they had been paying attention and they
>> were told to be outraged because of that. Complaints flowed in to the
>> FCC, but the number of people complaining was still a miniscule
>> percentage of TV viewers.
>
> No one really SAW the nipple (which was mostly covered with metal pastie
> thing) until someone freezed the frame and blew it up in size. It lasted
> on
> the screen for about a second of real time in a wide shot.
I was watching live and I saw it, recognized it for what it was, and
instantly knew that the brown matter would be hitting the fan as a result.
Ed Stasiak
>> Brian Smith wrote
>>
>> If you guys think you have it hard with broadcast censorship then
>> come to Canada.
>
> I don't like the censorship here, but the worst part, IMO, is that the
> 'crackdown' is largely the result of what the American public wants.
Does the vast majority of the American public really want it, or is
this just the (very small but loud) squeaky wheel getting the grease?
Like the politicians, TV shows, music, ect that we end up getting,
it's less a case of what we asked for and more what we're _told_
we should want and we're either too busy or lazy to do anything
about it and just accept it.
Ed Stasiak
>> Brian Smith wrote
>>
>> Censoring roots would be crazy but I guess anything is possible.
>
> elementary school music teacher for showing pupils a video about the
> opera "Faust," whose title character sells his soul to the devil in
> exchange
> for being young again.
>
> Colorado's eastern plains.
Like I said; "squeaky wheel" and the useful idiots in the media quickly
jump in to blow it all out of proportion.
Steven L.
>> Obveeus wrote
>>> Brian Smith wrote
>>>
>>> If you guys think you have it hard with broadcast censorship then
>>> come to Canada.
>> I don't like the censorship here, but the worst part, IMO, is that the
>> 'crackdown' is largely the result of what the American public wants.
>
> Does the vast majority of the American public really want it, or is
> this just the (very small but loud) squeaky wheel getting the grease?
As I just posted earlier, it's fear of ambitious politicians dragging
the network executives before Congressional subcommittees and reading
them the riot act, like what happened in 1974-75. Those hearings are
what ultimately led to FCC creating the 8 PM "Family Hour" as a sop to
head off even stronger legislation.
Brian Smith
But if the silent majority stood up and said something Congress would do
nothing or maybe even force stricter guidelines on the FCC before they could
start censoring broadcasts. The squeaky wheel analogy is perfect in this
case.
Brian
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote in message
news:P0ouj.217336$ST4.1...@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>> Obveeus wrote
>>> Brian Smith wrote
>>>
>>> If you guys think you have it hard with broadcast censorship then
>>> come to Canada.
>>
>> I don't like the censorship here, but the worst part, IMO, is that the
>> 'crackdown' is largely the result of what the American public wants.
>
> Does the vast majority of the American public really want it, or is
> this just the (very small but loud) squeaky wheel getting the grease?
I think it is the loud, minority squeeking. That is the problem. Maybe if
the majority actually started threatening to boycott an entire network if
they dared to refuse to air a program it would turn the tide. Of course,
sensible people don't get behind these types of boycotts. As a result, the
'lunatic fringe' is the part of society that gets heard most by the call in
complaint lines.
> Like the politicians, TV shows, music, ect that we end up getting,
> it's less a case of what we asked for and more what we're _told_
> we should want and we're either too busy or lazy to do anything
> about it and just accept it.
In this case, broadcast TV is moving in a more conservative direction to
appease a vocal minority and the majority of TV viewers are slowly moving to
cable in response. I expect that trend to continue.
Steven L.
I'm not sure how big a "silent majority" there is in this case. How
many American viewers with children of their own are going to lobby the
FCC to *allow* more sex and violence on TV?
Remember that in America, even liberals with their own children have
been complaining about the vulgar content of modern media. Tipper Gore,
the wife of liberal Democrat Al Gore, made that her cause celebre when
Gore was Vice President. Her husband then proposed content labeling for
music recordings:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4279560
Only dedicated civil libertarians dare take the side of TV or music
producers when it comes to distributing prurient material.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Only dedicated civil libertarians dare take the side of TV or music
> producers when it comes to distributing prurient material.
You do know the difference between labeling 'prurient material as such and
blocking 'prurient material from the public eye, right? Every parent has
the ability to turn the TV off if they don't like what is being shown.
Modern TVs have the ability to block certain channels or shows with specific
'prurient labels. With all those abilities, why is it still necessary to
prevent the content from existing in someone else's home?
Brian Smith
I wonder what these people would say if some group started campaigning to
have parenting tests to see if people are fit to have kids? Stuff like if
you can't control what your kid is watching or listening to, what they're
wearing, etc. could mean losing your kid or not having the right to have
any. Maybe then these people would worry about raising their own kids.
Brian
Steven L.
> "Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Only dedicated civil libertarians dare take the side of TV or music
>> producers when it comes to distributing prurient material.
>
> You do know the difference between labeling 'prurient material as such and
> blocking 'prurient material from the public eye, right?
I was using it as an example.
What people like you fail to understand is how much Hollywood is
despised as bad role models, not just by the so-called heartland "Red
States" but by most folks trying to raise a family these days. While
they pay intellectual lip service to the First Amendment, if someone in
Congress sticks it to Hollywood, everybody cheers, or at least gives it
their tacit consent.
Even on Usenet and the Internet, I notice that whenever it's come up,
whether with MTV or various broadcast TV shows that push the envelope,
the only defenders of Hollywood's right to broadcast as much adult
material as they want tend to be young progressives with no children of
their own. It's simply not something that parents, even LIBERAL
parents, want to touch with a ten foot pole.
That's why we have a First Amendment. Because if we had to depend on
*popular support* for freedom of expression, it would have been gone
long ago. Maybe they didn't teach you that lesson in history class when
you were in school. But I got it.
Steven L.
> I wonder what these people would say if some group started campaigning to
> have parenting tests to see if people are fit to have kids?
Actually, I've heard social conservatives proposing such things in the
concept of poverty and dysfunctional homes. Believing as they do that a
two-parent household is best for raising children, they have lobbied
Congress to make marriage counseling a prerequisite for receiving
welfare: A single mom on welfare must agree to get married and take
classes on parenting, in exchange for receiving government money.
Obveeus
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What people like you fail to understand is how much Hollywood is despised
> as bad role models,
This would be the equivalent of claiming thwat sports stars are despised as
bad role models. in reality, very few people are watching TV or sports in
an effort to find role modles beyond the narrow scope of their craft. Mel
Gibson or Kiefer Sutherland can be a 'role model' for acting, but that
doesn't mean that anyone is using their drunken stupidity as their idea of a
'role model' in life.
> not just by the so-called heartland "Red States" but by most folks trying
> to raise a family these days. While they pay intellectual lip service to
> the First Amendment, if someone in Congress sticks it to Hollywood,
> everybody cheers, or at least gives it their tacit consent.
In your concept of reality, I am quite sure that you believe that the
general public cheers when Congress is sticking it to people.
> Even on Usenet and the Internet, I notice that whenever it's come up,
> whether with MTV or various broadcast TV shows that push the envelope, the
> only defenders of Hollywood's right to broadcast as much adult material as
> they want tend to be young progressives with no children of their own.
> It's simply not something that parents, even LIBERAL parents, want to
> touch with a ten foot pole.
Do you believe that even 'liberal parents' are scared that they cannot teach
their children right from wrong? Sorry, but you sound like someone with no
kids and no prospect for kids. In general, parents are much more concerned
by the 'bad influence' of the other children than the bad influence of
TV/movies/video games/ whatever 'entertainment'. I'd be more worried about
my child 'rotting their brain' watching a Spongebob episode for the 10th
time than that they might not be able to process a woman's behind on TV for
5 seconds. REAL parents worry far more about TV / videogame / whatnot
excess time wasting than about snippets of content that aren't violent or
'sexual' passing before their kids eyes.
> That's why we have a First Amendment. Because if we had to depend on
> *popular support* for freedom of expression, it would have been gone long
> ago. Maybe they didn't teach you that lesson in history class when you
> were in school. But I got it.
Seriously, Steven, you don't make any sense at all sometimes. Do you really
want to suggest that I don't understand the first amendment becasue I think
'free speech' should exist? You seem to have 'learned' that The First
Amendment was written so that the government would be able to stop free
speech on the 'public airwaves'. I'm not convinced that that is what they
intended. Whatever it is that you 'got', it wasn't an understanding of The
First Amendment.
The Horny Goat
>Do you believe that even 'liberal parents' are scared that they cannot teach
>their children right from wrong? Sorry, but you sound like someone with no
>kids and no prospect for kids. In general, parents are much more concerned
>by the 'bad influence' of the other children than the bad influence of
>TV/movies/video games/ whatever 'entertainment'. I'd be more worried about
>my child 'rotting their brain' watching a Spongebob episode for the 10th
>time than that they might not be able to process a woman's behind on TV for
>5 seconds. REAL parents worry far more about TV / videogame / whatnot
>excess time wasting than about snippets of content that aren't violent or
>'sexual' passing before their kids eyes.
A lot depends on parents' judgement of their own kids' maturity.
For instance my son is currently playing Gothic 3 which has slavery as
a fairly major theme. One of my favorite tricks in this game (which I
finished about 3 weeks ago) is summoning demons. He's 16 and he's
entirely able to handle this kind of stuff now. He wouldn't have been
when he was 6.
Similarly I didn't let him watch Sex and the City when it first came
out though he is welcome to join us for Ugly Betty (which is at least
as 'mature') now - though he thinks (probably correctly) that it's
dumb.
He got to watch the early seasons of Survivor when he was 10-11 and we
didn't have 'interesting' discussions about Richard Hatch and Rudy.
Actually he thought Rudy's comments on that subject were pretty funny.
For instance I'm not sure I'd let him watch Big Brother After Dark
(though I'd let him watch the show itself) though I'm fairly certain
he'd turn it off after 5 minutes as hopelessly inane.
It's all a matter of the kids' maturity and part of the responsibility
of being a parent is watching your kids' back to ensure they don't get
dropped into waters way over their head till they can handle it.
It ain't rocket science folks.
The Horny Goat
wrote:
>Black History Month isn't about "movers and shakers" it's about the
>fact that blacks have been here a long time, but that history is often
>overlooked.
Among other things Jackie Robinson would never have made the big
leagues if he hadn't had the chance to play AAA in Montreal first.
DavidCrow
> With all those abilities, why is it still necessary to
> prevent the content from existing in someone else's home?
Because self-control only goes so far. People cannot police
themselves. That's why folks who diet and exercise realize a greater
deal of success when an accountability partner is involved.
Obveeus
"DavidCrow" <david...@pbsnow.com> wrote in message
news:540d0928-864d-407b...@h25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
'Accountability partner' = doctor?
You are talking about the people that go and have their stomach stapled and
call it a 'diet plan', right? Accurate analogy.
Ed Stasiak
>> Steven L. wrote
>>
>> It's simply not something that parents, even LIBERAL parents, want to
>> touch with a ten foot pole.
>
> Do you believe that even 'liberal parents' are scared that they cannot
> teach their children right from wrong?
As the saying goes; "If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart,
if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
I suspect that once the average Leftist couple has kids, much of their
support for freedom of speech (at least on TV) goes out the window,
as it makes raising _their_ kids that much harder;
KID: "But mommm, I wanna watch 'Gangst'a Booty Shakers' on MTV!"
MOM: "I said NO!"
KID: "But I thought this family unit was an autonomous collective?"
MOM: "Go to your room!"
KID: "...fascist..."
MOM: "I heard that!"
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> KID: "But mommm, I wanna watch 'Gangst'a Booty Shakers' on MTV!"
>
> MOM: "I said NO!"
>
> KID: "But I thought this family unit was an autonomous collective?"
>
> MOM: "Go to your room!"
>
> KID: "...fascist..."
>
> MOM: "I heard that!"
You sound every bit as childless as Steven.
If the kid can use the word 'fascist' in a relatively correct manner, only
an idiot of a parent would believe that MTV could 'harm them' mentally.
DavidCrow
> 'Accountability partner' = doctor?
> You are talking about the people that go and have their stomach stapled and
> call it a 'diet plan', right? Accurate analogy.
No, I'm not. I was simply referring to the lack of self-control that
folks have. Most folks seem to want to do the right thing, but they
are just too lazy or unmotivated to do so. That's where the third
party comes in.
Obveeus
Blocking the content from entering is more akin to getting your stomach
stapled than having a 'diet buddy'. Having a 'diet buddy' to help keep you
pointed in the right direction is more akin to listening to the TV ratings
for the shows before choosing what to watch.
Brian Smith
In this case the 'diet buddy' should be parents and not the government. Are
we not fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent stuff like
this? If people want government and/or some religious body to tell us what
we can do, etc. we might as let the Taliban take over North America.
Getting back to Amanda's butt, another issue is how can parents who want
this blurred tell their kids that they shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies.
A simple "this is a game and Amanda doesn't have any other clothes to wear"
should have been sufficient. By wanting her butt blurred they are just
asking for their kids to ask questions and to wonder what's wrong with butts
in general.
Brian
Obveeus
"Brian Smith" <dcg_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If people want government and/or some religious body to tell us what we
> can do, etc. we might as let the Taliban take over North America.
Many of these parental control types would be happy to see this country
revert back to a time when women 'stayed at home'. Some of them would
actually welcome the idea of not sending females to school at all.
> Getting back to Amanda's butt, another issue is how can parents who want
> this blurred tell their kids that they shouldn't be ashamed of their
> bodies.
Why would they tell their children not to be ashamed of their bodies?
'Shame' is a key element in the control/desire to make sure that pre-marital
coitus does not occur.
> A simple "this is a game and Amanda doesn't have any other clothes to
> wear" should have been sufficient. By wanting her butt blurred they are
> just asking for their kids to ask questions and to wonder what's wrong
> with butts in general.
Butts are 'excretory organs'. The FCC said so...and reaffirmed it today by
upholding the fine against NYPD Blue.
Ed Stasiak
>> Ed Stasiak wrote
>>
>> KID: "...fascist..."
>> MOM: "I heard that!"
>
> You sound every bit as childless as Steven.
Doesn't change the fact that I know raising kids is hard enough without
having to deal with TV shows/movies/music influencing them in ways
parent might not like and that I know most people (including parents)
will follow the path of least resistance.
But I don't remember you ever mentioning your kids, how many do
you have?
> If the kid can use the word 'fascist' in a relatively correct manner, only
> an idiot of a parent would believe that MTV could 'harm them' mentally.
Or little Fidel is just parroting what he's heard his parents say? Either
way, it's up to the parents to decide what's right for him and odds are
that while they may bitch on Usenet that Chimpy McHitler is censoring
TV, they really ain't going to do anything about it because that would
mean they'd have to keep a closer eye on what their kid is watching.
Obveeus
"Ed Stasiak" <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>> Obveeus wrote
>>> Ed Stasiak wrote
>>>
>>> KID: "...fascist..."
>>> MOM: "I heard that!"
>>
>> You sound every bit as childless as Steven.
>
> Doesn't change the fact that I know raising kids is hard enough without
> having to deal with TV shows/movies/music influencing them in ways
> parent might not like and that I know most people (including parents)
> will follow the path of least resistance.
No doubt if you had kids you would be trying to start a campaign to have all
the 'tree hugger' shows removed from their airwaves so that your kids are
not corrupted. ;-)
> But I don't remember you ever mentioning your kids, how many do
> you have?
I still am a kid. That is why I understand that if a kid can understand
what fascism is, the parents would have to be extremely naive to worry about
MTV's 'corruptive influence'. When kids are little, they don't want to
watch cop shows that investigate crime scenes. That crap is boring. They
want to watch Fairly Oddparents...as almost 9 million viewers proved Monday
night.
> Either way, it's up to the parents to decide what's right for him and odds
> are
> that while they may bitch on Usenet that Chimpy McHitler is censoring
> TV, they really ain't going to do anything about it because that would
> mean they'd have to keep a closer eye on what their kid is watching.
You mean like some guy with a 16 year old kid that doesn't believe his kid
is ready to see what goes on on Big Brother After Dark...not realizing that
most of the kids friends are already doing those same things? ;-)
The Horny Goat
>You mean like some guy with a 16 year old kid that doesn't believe his kid
>is ready to see what goes on on Big Brother After Dark...not realizing that
>most of the kids friends are already doing those same things? ;-)
I assure you he's Internet - savvy enough to find considerably worse
than BBAD without my help.
I don't monitor his activities online nearly as I did 5 years ago but
that doesn't mean I have to help him! As for 'doing those same things'
he knows the score and has crossed the line before - fortunately he's
sworn off alcohol for the time being after an unfortunate incident
last summer. (I don't expect that to last forever but at least he now
knows enough to be more sensible about it)
El Borracho
>Butts are 'excretory organs'. The FCC said so...and reaffirmed it today by
>upholding the fine against NYPD Blue.
Umm...butts (or buttocks) commonly refer to only the fleshy, fatty
part of the body on which we sit. It is the intestines, ending at the
anus between the two buttocks, that serve as an excretory organ. I
believe that neither Survivor nor NYPD Blue has ever given us a clear
shot of someone's Little Brown Ring.
Obveeus
"El Borracho" <add...@null.invalid> wrote in message
news:mq8rr3pf1eh15eokd...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 18:54:20 -0500, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Butts are 'excretory organs'. The FCC said so...and reaffirmed it today
>>by
>>upholding the fine against NYPD Blue.
>
> Umm...butts (or buttocks) commonly refer to only the fleshy, fatty
> part of the body on which we sit. It is the intestines, ending at the
> anus between the two buttocks, that serve as an excretory organ.
Not according to the FCC and they should know.
yksmir
> "The Horny Goat" <lcra...@home.ca> wrote:
>
> > Uh - in our viewing area both Survivor and BB are on at 8 pm. The
> > Apprentice is on at 9 so presumably Trump should be bringing us more
> > raunch right?
>
> Actually, no. The FCC rules restrict 'raunch' any time before 10pm. Well,
> technically, they restrict any 'raunch' no matter what time, but they are
> 'more restrictive' during the 8pm-10pm timeframe than the 10pm-11pm
> timeframe. Recently, this issue has been brought to a head because the FCC
> decided to fine the ABC network over an episode of NYPD Blue that aired 5
> years ago. The 'fine' was only enforced against ABC's US affiliates in the
> Central and Mountain timezone since primetime television shows are aired 1
> hour earlier in those timezones. In essence, the FCC is trying to using
> their censorship power to block the long standing tradition of the
> Central/Mountain timezones to air their 'primetime' an hour earlier than the
> East/West coast.
>
> I'd like to think that the next President would show some brain power and
> cut the FCC budget/power to near nothing, but that likely won't happen no
> matter who is elected. So, every individual needs to complain to the
> FCC/congress/etc... or watch that department further erode the 'freedom' of
> American citizens.
And I think it likely to get worse, freedomwise, after November. Look
at Canada.
DavidCrow
> how can parents who want
> this blurred tell their kids that they shouldn't be ashamed of their bodies.
Not being ashamed of one's body has nothing to do with being seeing
"nude" in public.
DavidCrow
> ...pre-marital coitus does not occur.
Nothing wrong with that.
Brian Smith
______________________________________________________
Are you implying Amanda was "nude" in public during S15? Anyone who has
issues with how Amanda's butt was showing a bit during S15 has more serious
issues to deal with. Pushing their morality onto others being a big one.
Brian